[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: (erielack) E8 conversions (2)



> Finally, they didn't re-gear all of the E-8s.  Maybe it
> wasn't worth it?
I believe a few were kept in passenger trim for business train service.

At least EL #825 (later CR #4014) and #833 (later CR #4022) were retained 
for the Youngstown-Cleveland passenger service 'till 1/77 - afterwards, they 
eventually were utlized in CR OCS , with the #4022 I believe still in 
storage at Bennet Levin's garage in Altoona along w/his PRR E8's...

Rich Behrendt
ELHS #384
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee_@_verizon.net>
To: "'Janet & Randy Brown'" <jananran_@_mymailstation.com>; 
<erielack_@_lists.railfan.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:07 PM
Subject: RE: (erielack) E8 conversions


> Randy Brown wrote:
>
>> To say that they used the same motors might be to
>> oversimplify a bit.  If they applied larger wheels to
>> accommodate larger gears, that meant larger gear cases -- 
>> which meant different gear cases.  Then, larger bull gears on
>> the axles usually meant smaller pinions on the motor shafts,
>> which would have meant pulling the motor from the casing,
>> pulling the armature from the motor, pulling the pinion from
>> the armature, installing the new pinion, re-installing the
>> armature, and hoping the motor would fit the new gear casing
>> and that the gear-to-gear distance would be correct.  And all
>> this while changing wheels.
>>
>> Of course, they knew before starting what would work.  I'll
>> bet they used the whole motor, gear and casing assembly as a
>> trade in for a  whole new assembly which they dropped in.
>
> I am led to understand that they used motors already on the units.  Yes, 
> they had to change both the
> bull gear and the pinion, but there's no reason to assume, Randy, that the 
> center to center distance
> between the armature and the axle was different.  In fact, it's my 
> understanding that this was one
> reason for the establishment of the various gear ratios which were 
> available.  I don't recall the
> proper ratios, so I'll make up a couple, but a 16/60 might have the same 
> c-to-c distance as a 20/48.
> (Just so as to be clear to everybody, I'm sure that those are bogus 
> combinations, but they serve, I
> think, to make the point.)
>
>> Finally, they didn't re-gear all of the E-8s.  Maybe it
>> wasn't worth it?
>
> I believe a few were kept in passenger trim for business train service.
>
> SGL
>
>
> The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
> Sponsored by the ELH&TS
> http://www.elhts.org
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.0/276 - Release Date: 3/7/2006
>
> 


	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org

------------------------------